Approx a 400' building in this location will stand out nicely like St. James. If the city can line Chestnut and Walnut every couple of blocks with this height it would look outstanding.

This is a Parkway Joint. That Beige Precast = Dryvit. This is going to be a corner cutter at every artistic measure.

was thinking the same, this looks like it was lifted from River North or just South of the Loop - not that Chicago does not have stellar construction but for the few we get (even in a boom) I for one think this is bland and seeing as there is little around it it will be more noticeable

There was a lot of similar criticism for the rendering of 38 Chestnut and now everyone is super happy with the way that turned out.

As long as construction starts after August I'm fine with it. Just made all the payments on Union Trust as the venue and it's too late to change now.

I think that this is a fairly preliminary rendering and nowhere as bad as some other ones we've seen.

So should all your buds here on SkyscraperPage save the date on our calendars? :yes:

And do you mind if I bring a few guests? :whistle:

It's a fixed price, so if we have one beer or a billion it's the same price. Wear a suite and bring a gift! :bowtie::boogy::takemymoney::banana::dancing::awesome::cheers:

Some shots of the site and neighbors taken yesterday:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7637/...44d8f5fd_c.jpg022 by tehshadowbat, on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8714/...a12c81e5_c.jpg018 by tehshadowbat, on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7637/...96196c59_c.jpg023 - Copy by tehshadowbat, on Flickr

Don't want to get OT here, but glad you decided to go with Finley for your wedding! Finley is doing our wedding at the Crystal Tea Room in June and it's been great working with them.

From the Center City District:

New Apartment Tower Proposed at Seventh and Chestnut
Roseland, an affiliate of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation, has partnered with the Parkway Corporation on a proposal to build a 32-story apartment tower at 709 Chestnut Street, presently a surface parking lot, PlanPhilly reported on March 25. The property is owned by Parkway.

Plans call for 300 high-end apartments, 11,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor amenity space, and a 125-vehicle automatic parking garage. The partnership recently made a preliminary presentation of the project to Washington Square West Civic Association and plans to apply for zoning variances, including one for the 32 stories, in the next few weeks, the article noted.

The developers also need Historical Commission review, since part of the proposed tower overhangs a historic property, and a review by the Civic Design Review Committeebecause of the tower’s size.

Construction is expected to begin in late 2015.

http://www.centercityphila.org/press...news040715.php

I'll take the over.

There are just WAAAAY too many committees reviewing projects. If I had my way, there would be ONE committee that would review all projects. It would be comprised of two urban designers/planners (one with a specialty in transportation), an economist, an architect, one community (NIMBY) representative, a lawyer, and when necessary, a historical expert. They would have sole authority to review and reject projects as well as make suggestions for improvements. Significantly, no one from city council gets involved. Community meetings become optional. And we do away with the zoning board and all the other committees.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/po...bp5BEZtTRPf.99

That's not this so what are we getting, exactly? I guess if it's a bait and switch it won't matter since this building was so ho-hum to begin with, LOL.

https://scontent-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...7b&oe=55B1C14A

Actually, that design DOES cantilever over the Union Trust building--although not by much--so that may be the design that was approved.

You think? Under no circumstances would I call that an "unusual" design.

Perhaps they meant "unusual" in that it cantilevers over the neighboring building.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I have a feeling that this design may look a bit better than what's depicted in that rendering. That's a fairly primitive, cartoon-style rendering, as opposed to a photo-realistic rendering that better displays the details, materials, and surfaces to be used. If the right materials and details are used, it might not be a bad building for that location. Plus, we're unable to see the ground-floor details and how it would relate to the street and sidewalk.

Thank you for saying this. I feel the same about the way this building, and many others are reviewed on this website. Talk about short memories. When the St James was going up we were all extremely excited. That was near the start of what I'd call the modern building era in Philadelphia. Before that it was a long time since we had a tower going up and it was fun to read about it. Back then I had a neighbor say "why are you obsessed with this building", and I said "it's not just about the building. It's about what's happening in the city". If it was proposed today there would be so much negativity on this site that I probably wouldn't even want to read about it here.

Nowadays I come to this website expecting a large amount of negativity as people discuss the new proposals. Damn guys, that's why I don't come here so often any more. What is happening to the Philadelphia forum? It's going negadelphian. The knee jerk reactions to this proposal are a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Rendering from the North side:

http://www.intechconstruction.com/cu...endering-2.jpg

http://www.intechconstruction.com/cu...p?mode=0&id=3#

Well, it's no St. James, but time will tell.